Lances point is he gains " a way to think about religions." But the question was about something else: "system as based on blind faith." Its analysis of a belief system "as a religion" vs analyzing the same system "as blind faith."

Two different things. Its all very ...............definitional. At some point, Lance should come to grips with how religions are different than blind faith systems rather than stopping his understanding at their commonalities. They are not the same........as designated by two different definitions of them.

Any two "things" have points in common and points in difference. To better understand two things, the analysis of both sides needs to be made. Then we weigh or evaluate the importance of the commonalities and the differences and make judgments as to which predominates, or when which predominates, perhaps tweak the definitions and do it all over again.

A standard approach to all things definitional..........which all things are.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Blind faith may be a stronger term, Bobbo, than you are comfortable with. Feel free to replace it with an alternative, like "belief in the absence of supporting data ".

My point is that religion is belief without proper scientific support, and so are many other belief systems. For example, many environmentalists give value to ideas based on an image of "nature " as infallible authority. I do not see this as different to a religion. However, more rational environmentalists adhere to the findings of the science of ecology. Not unsupported belief, but belief based on the findings of good science.

Lance: why categorize me asking for you to explain a distinction you make as my being uncomfortable? ....... I'm not, at all.

Religion: An institution to express belief in a divine power. /// and I easily accept your including Bhuddism although as it doesn't have a divine power...why call it religion?

Belief: Any cognitive content held as true /// and I easily accept your including "blind faith" as any belief held as true that does not have proper scientific support.

...............and back to Lance's original statement that I will parse:

But my view is that defining religion as a belief system based on blind faith permits me to look at other belief systems, not normally defined as religions, and see the similarities. //// OK...but when you note the similarities of communism with Religion....the only ones you will find will be those related to "a belief system" because anything that is not religious........is not religious. Your exercise is pointedly pointless. Thats why I ask...what do you gain by calling "whatever" a religion as it can only tell you about systems of belief?

Thus, I can consider extremist views, whether communist, capitalist, environmentalist, feminist, or whatever, and consider them as religions. /// But they are not BY DEFINITION, and you gain NOTHING by doing so....so...what do you think you gain by doing so?

That understanding helps me to see the serious flaws in extremist, blind faith based ideas. /// No, it doesn't. You are only adding a step (calling it a Religion) and then taking that step out of your considerations.

Stop doing that, and you will be thinking more clearly, more direct, more using standard dictionary meanings of words.

Without something less self oriented, how can we start to discuss religions that don't include blind faith????? Know what I mean?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

If it did not include blind faith, it would not be religion. In fact, if a belief system was based on something more solid, it might even be science.

The point is, Bobbo, that religion is a way of thinking, just as science is a different way of thinking. If you follow the religious way of thinking, meaning non critical acceptance of something on faith, that is (by my definition) a religion . When Mara described the nonsense she experienced at the hands of extreme feminists, she was experiencing something believed through faith, not through data and critical thinking.

As I said before, you do not have to accept my definition of religion. But at least think about it in an open minded way and see if it fits.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Ok....one more time before I make a sandwich: NO ONE BUT YOU has said "sex crimes have nothing to do with sex."

Can't you see something that large and erroneous and pointed out so often? The only thing that explains this is you are just goofing on us.........or you have problems I've never actually come into contact with............... I do tend to walk fast past the corner soap box preachers. Was that YOU?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

No Lance: I've done the opposite: deny your claim that all sex crimes are based on the sex drive. As as been admirably explained to you by everyone else on this thread. Repetition and mischaracterization doesn't make you look good.

Sex drive is "behind" sex crimes when the sex drive is "necessary but not sufficient" to produce a certain kind of sex crime that is different from hormonal kiddie date rape........or do you also argue there is only one kind of rape. ...... Ha, ha.......yes, I think in the main that is what you do. All rape is putting a penis where it shouldn't be.

See how definitional everything is? Putting a penis into a cookie jar is not the natural demand of the sex drive. Neither is putting a penis into a woman always a result of the sex drive.........unless you define it that way. Then, all we have to do is ignore the studies showing penis in woman without any sex drive involved. Are you going to agree then flip flop on this again? Plethysmography + EEG = Not all sex acts are result of sex drive.

Deal with the exception, not your general rule.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

You accused me of ignoring data, but you are the one guilty of that. You are simply making assertions with nothing to back them. I have given you evidence. You ignore the evidence, which is characteristic of religious, blind faith baxed beliefs.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Oh Lance.......you just went dumb {!#%@} crazy. Its the brain, not the penis, that causes/reveals sexual arousal. penis arousal is just dusting off a tool, only one of several that could be used. The EEG shows no sex oriented motivations/response.

Deal with it.....not your circular deny the facts obsession.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

So...................................................... another tack is to ask: so what?

Lance: what is the difference, what do you gain or lose, by calling rape solely the result of a sex drive being illegally applied vs calling rape mostly the result of a sex drive being illegally applied AS WELL AS some other motivations that have nothing to do with the sex drive being illegally applied.

It's been referred to above, just not so directly.

Whats the difference?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Please go to the substance of the question at least 3 times posed. .......... so ................. "emotional." why is that? ///NO...no side questions. Actually.........you are good at sidestepping as everyone here is so polite.......

What is Plethysmography + EEG?

You answered the Plethy and avoided the EEG. Hint: eventually, you have to decide if your brains are in your head or your penis. You present the opposite case. Odd thing for a scientist to do.........but your field was ........botany? or microbes???? Things do get more complicated.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Any good student of humanity knows very well that we think with more than our brains. Decisions are made influenced by gut, gonads, and other parts. Pure rational thinking is rare, as witness the people who think that sex crimes have nothing to do with the sex drive.

Any good student of humanity knows very well that we think with more than our brains. Decisions are made influenced by gut, gonads, and other parts. Pure rational thinking is rare, as witness the people who think that sex crimes have nothing to do with the sex drive.

Silly.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

This argument began when I stated that rape was the result of the sex drive. I was opposed vehemently by yourself, and three others. I have now PROVEN (as far as science ever permits proof) that I was correct. Your response should rightly be, "I was wrong." But it appears that you, and the other three lack the moral fiber and grace to do that. Instead you are trying to say "I never said that." Pathetic !

This argument began when I stated that rape was the result of the sex drive. I was opposed vehemently by yourself, and three others. I have now PROVEN (as far as science ever permits proof) that I was correct. Your response should rightly be, "I was wrong." But it appears that you, and the other three lack the moral fiber and grace to do that. Instead you are trying to say "I never said that." Pathetic !

Slimy Lance - can`t produce the evidence, so you double down with BS. Sad.

Please quote someone who said... ...that sex crimes have nothing to do with the sex drive.

...........so many funny insightful OVERPOWERING ways to respond at this point. All repetitious...but still.

I'll go with the most recent unfounded assault on common sense: LANCE: is your most recent post just above a product of your brain, gut, gonads, or other parts? Thinking rationally.......how do you tell?

Is starting a thread with a conclusion demonstrating the very point you rail against??

How many flip flops per page???

What does "necessary but not sufficient" mean????

What is your definition of an arsehole?????

Why no links??????

Why no confirming authorities???????

Fourth Time: EEG studies showing hard penis but sexual arousal areas of the brain are inactive. Aggression areas of the brain all lit up. What area of your brain is active....if any????????

Yes, lot's of questions.

Male on male rape in prison to establish power/rank....is this also sexual????????? (Like EVERY OTHER HYPOTHETICAL: I's say usually not, but of course, sometimes.)

No copy and paste to confirm any commentary you claim others have made???????????

Your own affirmations and self congratulations spinning faster and faster, farther and farther, off your nut????????????

You know how I'm going to end this...............................................

Spoiler:

Just Look.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

You denied that the sex drive was the basis for rape. I have shown clearly with the examples of drugs suppressing the sex drive and stopping rape, that without the sex drive there is no rape.

Actually, there are, in addition, several cases where serial rapists on those drugs stopped taking them, regained their sex drives, and began raping again. Suppressing the sex drive stops the rapes. Regaining the sex drive restarts the raping.

The sex drive is most clearly and certainly the basic cause of rape. Do not get yourself in an intellectual tangle by thinking that peripheral influences are the same as causes. They are not. The cause of rape is the sex drive. The unusual stimuli that cause rapists to get aroused are not the causes. They are influences.

You guys are deluding yourselves in claiming you never said anything of a bull-{!#%@} nature. The exact wording of your argument is not that important. You clearly denied that the sex drive was the basic cause of rape. You were wrong. Get some moral courage and face up to it !!

"The exact wording of your argument is not that important." /// OH DARN. NOW you tell me??????????? Well...... now for sure I can win every argument I ever have. Thanks Lance. We learn so much here.........((I'm thinking with my nether regions right now...........))

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

It utterly staggers me at times to see how far some people will go to avoid making the simple statement " I was wrong."

The argument was about whether the sex drive was the basic cause of rape. You and three others vehemently opposed that idea. Now that I have demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that the sex drive is, in fact, the basic cause of rape, you and the other three are saying anything and everything you can think of to avoid the simple honesty of admitting you were wrong. Human hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Because that is not what the argument was about, as you well know.

What I know - is that the argument is all in your head. You are a master at twisting what posters have said - or rather what they have not said. If you didn`t misrepresent, create strawmen, and spew abuse - but instead followed and responded to what was actually said - you might have learned something.

You guys are ridiculous. You will do anything to avoid simply admitting error. You start by saying "I did not say that." And now you want to change definitions.

I presented a definition of rape some time back, from the Oxford unabridged dictionary, which said it was forcible sexual intercourse. So, to avoid admitting error, you now want to change the entire argument by saying that the definition is wrong. Duh !

Well, of course if you change definitions, you change an argument. But it is now a different discussion. I am not interested in trying to argue about sex crimes that are different to rape as defined by the Oxford dictionary. Because it is not the same discussion. We might as well be arguing about why people rob banks.

As I keep saying, why not exhibit a bit of moral fiber, instead of the pusillanimous refusal to admit error.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You guys are ridiculous. You will do anything to avoid simply admitting error. You start by saying "I did not say that." ...

Could be because... wait for it... We didn`t say what you say we said. If we had - you would have quoted us.

Your restrictive definition (Collins) was introduced rather late in the thread, and while it is supported by various sources, it is counter to colloquial usage. It is hard for me to fault a recent contributor for not sticking to your definition given the illogical gyrations you have performed throughout the tread.